It's pretty much arbitrary, and based more than anything on whether or not a certain combination of ages gives most people a creepy feeling. How else do you rationally explain laws that make it legal for two 16 year-olds to have sex but not a 26 year old and 16 year old? It's not like the sex with the other teenager is any safer (in fact, if anything it's probably less safe for a teen to have sex with another idiot teen).
Age of Consent and Age Differences
- Thread starter Thoreau
- Start date
In many places it is indeed legal for adults to have sex with older minors (usually around 16 or 17). The legalities on two minors having sex with each other varies greatly by age and location.
Edit: It even varies by what sort of sex they're having.
By "arbitrary" I meant based on people's different subjective judgments, rather than some objective criteria.
The problem with this argument ....
Okay, let's think of it this way. In the U.S., we have two standards of adulthood: eighteen and twenty-one years. I have no objection investing the age of consent at one of these barriers.
But people didn't want to wait that long. They wanted the girls—yes, specifically the girls—sooner than that. (In 1875, the age of consent for girls was ten in some places.) So what we have is a patchwork of state laws running between twelve and sixteen. (I think the age twelve standard is either out already or on its way out; it has to do with an exception to the standard age of consent insofar as if a twelve year old girl has already had sex—e.g., raped—she can elect to have sex while a "pure" girl must wait.)
The thing that bothers me about this is that it just seems like a lot of guys are upset that they can't bang fourteen year-olds. You know the old saying, "Old enough to bleed, old enough to breed"? That's just the thing. A young person of either gender might be functionally capable of having sex, but given the complexity of some grown-up cons to get people in the sack, I just don't think it's a good idea for adults to be banging minors.
If you drink in American taverns often enough, you'll eventually hear this discussion, and what is weird about it is that it is an inconsistent standard that you can find in the same people. That is, when it's somebody else's daughter and you want to bang her, fourteen seems good enough, but when it's your daughter and somebody else wants to bang her, numbers like "thirty" come to mind.
Okay, let's think of it this way. In the U.S., we have two standards of adulthood: eighteen and twenty-one years. I have no objection investing the age of consent at one of these barriers.
But people didn't want to wait that long. They wanted the girls—yes, specifically the girls—sooner than that. (In 1875, the age of consent for girls was ten in some places.) So what we have is a patchwork of state laws running between twelve and sixteen. (I think the age twelve standard is either out already or on its way out; it has to do with an exception to the standard age of consent insofar as if a twelve year old girl has already had sex—e.g., raped—she can elect to have sex while a "pure" girl must wait.)
The thing that bothers me about this is that it just seems like a lot of guys are upset that they can't bang fourteen year-olds. You know the old saying, "Old enough to bleed, old enough to breed"? That's just the thing. A young person of either gender might be functionally capable of having sex, but given the complexity of some grown-up cons to get people in the sack, I just don't think it's a good idea for adults to be banging minors.
If you drink in American taverns often enough, you'll eventually hear this discussion, and what is weird about it is that it is an inconsistent standard that you can find in the same people. That is, when it's somebody else's daughter and you want to bang her, fourteen seems good enough, but when it's your daughter and somebody else wants to bang her, numbers like "thirty" come to mind.
It applies to boys as well, though they are generally slightly older 13 instead of 12 currently, depending on the state, and generally no one really cares. This goes back to at least the 11th century when a lot of English law was codified.
The is a misconception. It doesn't matter. The only two things which matter for statuatory rape are her age and if she is married. If she is underage it is rape -no matter what- unless you are legally married to her. If she is married then she can sex it up with her hubby as much as they want.
It really simple, just get married.
Of course, it is a social question.
Old Boston loved little boys?
Well, you know, it was the men making the laws in the early United States, and since sodomy hasn't exactly been legal for most of that time, it's a difficult projection to think of a bunch of old men in Boston devising ways to make it legal to get on a bunch of little boys before they grow too manly.
Please see the Webistry.net list of ages of consent by state, and attend the footnote to Mississippi:
That is what I'm referring to.
_____________________
Notes:
"Legal Age of Consent". (n.d.) Webistry.net. October 2, 2009. http://www.webistry.net/jan/consent.html
Swarm said:
Well, you know, it was the men making the laws in the early United States, and since sodomy hasn't exactly been legal for most of that time, it's a difficult projection to think of a bunch of old men in Boston devising ways to make it legal to get on a bunch of little boys before they grow too manly.
Please see the Webistry.net list of ages of consent by state, and attend the footnote to Mississippi:
Mississippi......16 - [2]
[2]If the female is over 12, the status applies only to virgins.
• • •
[2]If the female is over 12, the status applies only to virgins.
That is what I'm referring to.
_____________________
Notes:
"Legal Age of Consent". (n.d.) Webistry.net. October 2, 2009. http://www.webistry.net/jan/consent.html
If people simply want to say that teens below a certain age aren't mature enough to handle the non-trivial risks that sex entails, that seems perfectly reasonable. We do it with driving, drinking, owning guns, buying fireworks, and plenty of other things.
The thing that seems somewhat schizophrenic to me is when people say that teens of a certain age are competent to assume the risks involved in having sex with each other, but not with an older adult. On the face of it, the risks appear to be exactly the same - if anything, the risks involved in having sex with another teen are probably greater than the risks when doing it with an adult.
The argument that people commonly use to support that sort of position is that older people are "more sophisticated" or some such, and that they therefor might be more skilled at persuading the teen to have sex then his/her peers, who are presumably relatively incompetent at seduction. The thing is, that sort of argument doesn't really fit within the framework of the above-mentioned "not old enough to assume the risk" justification that's virtually always used to justify putting an age limit on sexual activity. Is a teen of a given age competent to assume the risks, or aren't they? If you think they aren't competent, then they shouldn't be allowed to have sex with anyone. If you think they are competent, then the older adult is merely convincing the teen to do something that you've already deemed acceptable.
Edit: Would it make any sense to anyone for it to be legal for a teen to do a friend a favor by driving them somewhere if the friend is another teen, but not if the friend was an adult? Even if we assume that the adult is much more able to persuade the teen to do them the favor of driving them somewhere, I doubt many people would think such a law would make sense...
Last edited:
I think the idea is that even if you make it illegal for teens to bang each other they are still going to do it. So you might as well make it legal and at least protect them legally from people who are more likely to be taking advantage of their inexperience and raging hormones.
Of course I suppose you could just make it illegal and then only bother to enforce the law when you think that something unjust is taking place. This would probably be seen to be somewhat corrupt though, and it would certainly be easily abused. So not really a good way to go.
Well we have almost the opposite law here in Victoria, Australia. Under 21 year olds (it might be older, I forget the details) who are in their first year of driving are not allowed to drive more than 1 other 21 year old around. They can have as many over 21's in their car as they like. Of course the logic behind this is to do with irresponsible driving rather than taking advantage of people. It's a new law that only came in last year actually and I'm not sure how well it works.
I can't speak for other countries, but the idea of "There's no point in making this illegal because everyone will just ignore the law and we couldn't enforce it even if we wanted to" seem to be entirely alien in the US justice system.
Don't get me wrong, it definitely makes a certain amount of pragmatic sense, but I just don't think that's how the US justice system thinks about things. I strongly suspect that people's real motivation for wanting to outlaw sex between teens and adults is that they simply find it creepy. But saying "this seems really creepy" isn't considered sufficient justification to outlaw something in the US, so they justify it by pointing out that teens below a certain age aren't mature/competent/whatever enough to handle the risks associated with sex. The true motivation, however, shows through when they don't bother to outlaw underage teens having sex with each other, even though the risk is exactly the same (if not greater). They don't find it creepy, so it stays legal.
Peer groups
In the United States, it is illegal to coerce someone into having sex, but it is perfectly legal to defraud them.
Allowing juveniles to undertake such endeavors among their peer group certainly has its risks, but that's the way peer groups work. When you're a parent, if your kid must necessarily be conned into giving away their virtue, who would you rather they go through the fumbling, awkward first time with:
What a choice. An awkward peer? Or a guy who looks like a gun smuggler?
You can't own your kid's sexuality, but you're allowed—even expected—to give a damn.
Peer groups explore together. Beyond that, someone is being exploited.
And, yes, peer groups include exploitative dynamics. Unfortunately, that's just part of growing up. You deal with what comes, but that doesn't mean anything goes.
The issue there is distraction.
Nasor said:
In the United States, it is illegal to coerce someone into having sex, but it is perfectly legal to defraud them.
Allowing juveniles to undertake such endeavors among their peer group certainly has its risks, but that's the way peer groups work. When you're a parent, if your kid must necessarily be conned into giving away their virtue, who would you rather they go through the fumbling, awkward first time with:
What a choice. An awkward peer? Or a guy who looks like a gun smuggler?
You can't own your kid's sexuality, but you're allowed—even expected—to give a damn.
Peer groups explore together. Beyond that, someone is being exploited.
And, yes, peer groups include exploitative dynamics. Unfortunately, that's just part of growing up. You deal with what comes, but that doesn't mean anything goes.
The issue there is distraction.
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
If you're just talking about casual dating, including sex, that's nobody's business except the participants. I'm a libertarian and it's essential that consenting adults be allowed to do whatever the heck they want so long as it causes no direct harm to others. I'll leave the question open as to who's an adult.
But if you're talking about serious dating with the prospect of marriage, my rule of thumb is twenty years. Beyond that you've got someone from a different generation. In today's world where things change so quickly you've got some serious problems understanding each other and sharing interests. Of course I don't think it should be a law--consenting adults and all that--and of course there are exceptions to every rule and some May-December couple is going to find eternal bliss. But it's something to stop and think about before diving in.
I read (and I can't vouch for the authority of this) that in earlier times it was the mark of responsibility for a middle-aged man to never hire a prostitute who was a generation younger. The reason was that it could be a daughter he didn't know he had.
I have a friend who's son was busted for statch when he was 18 and his girlfriend was 17.8. All it took was for her father to get pissed off and run to the cops. Now he's on that snitch'n'bitch list that prevents him from getting a job or renting a home.
But fortunately all states don't play by the same rules. In desperation and poverty he moved back in with his mother in another state. The next morning he dutifully reported to the police station to register as a sex offender. The lady behind the desk took a good look at his record, laughed, wadded up the printout, threw it in the trash, and said, "Welcome to [the other state.] Have a nice life, son."
Exactly. If she wanted to have a fling with a middle-aged guy, virtually all of them are available to her. Why not set her sights a little higher and go for the wealthier one? She doesn't have to be a gold-digger and try to screw him out of half his fortune, but why not enjoy being treated to nice gifts and vacations?
If she's not that bright, then you can't help wondering what else is wrong with her and is it contagious?
Politics. Next question?
Yeah, you see that one in the newspaper all the time. They're both guilty of statch ("statutory rape").
Thoreau
Valued Senior Member
I think 20 years is too much. 10-15 years difference already qualifies as a different generation. Consider an 18 year old having relations with a 38 year old. The 38 y/o is old enough to be the father/mother.
I think that it's utterly retarded that two consenting minors that have sex can be charges with rape; just as retarded it would be to charge two consenting adults with rape. Honestly, what percentage of the population didn't "fool around" before they were of legal age despite the state/country laws?
I think the powers of government have gone too far, personally. Let kids be kids. If they wanna mess around with eachother, so what? I think it's natural. But whatever. Who am I?
You've got a bit too much gay on the brain there...
All of this is just for determining if some one is old enough to enter into a legal hetero marriage. Girls generally the earliest is 12 and boys generally its 13. This is different from the age at which people can have sex outside of marriage, which is generally 18 with some caveats for earlier depending on the state. As you point out sodomy has generally been illegal and so is not addressed by either of those laws.
Miss. has an anachronism still on its books, big surprise, but the 12 year old wasn't a virgin defense isn't going to fly any more than raping your wife is still a go.
There are only two kinds of laws possible to consider in regard to your quesiton: a scientific one and a belief based one.
If you want a belief based law (like theocracy, or democracy) you get to use any old reason. That will due, you just need a consensus or a prophetic nonsense book written by the ancients. Consensus among the comman man is just want they were conditioned to believe, it has nothing to do with a standpoint that was arrived at via sound reasoning.
If you want a science based law, you must prove that sex at a specific age (or age range) causes harm to the person experiencing sex. Age never does this. The number of times a human circles the sun has nothing to do with sex and sex has nothing to do with rotations around the sun. There will never be a scientific law that shows evidence of harm from any kind of sex between humans of any age. Unfortunately, people confuse psychological abuse and physical abuse with sexual physical affection, this is the main confusion. Sexual physical affection will never be a true scientifically based crime.
Don't forget, "If she's got turf, its time to surf."